I'm fine with speed and technical language, but I do flow, so watch your speed and make sure you're speaking clearly.

I'm definitely looking for impacts and research, not just persuasive language.

I'm not convinced you need frameworks or roadmaps either. Just present your case.

(she/her) I'm a senior at the University of Washington and debated public forum for three years. You can run pretty much whatever and I'll vote off the flow. As always, be respectful towards your opponents otherwise I will dock speaker points.

Feel free to talk as fast as you prefer, but the speed needs to be purposeful. Nothing is worse than listening to a fast speech filled with useless info.

As a judge, I will not weigh your arguments for you. When there is clash, I want you to clearly lay out why I need to prefer your side. Any we said/they said arguments with no analysis are going to be a wash. Use impact calc and the specific terms.

Make the debate fun!! Its always better to judge fun rounds, and you should be enjoying yourselves as well.

Andrew Chadwell,

Assistant Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA

Coached PF: 10+ years

Competed in PF: 1 year

Competed in British Parliamentary: 2 years

Competed at the 2012 World Universities Debating Championship in Manila.

Items that are Specific to the 2018 TOC tournament are placed at the end of this-I would still encourage you all to read the whole Paradigm and not just the TOC items.

Hello all,

Note: I debated in PF at a time when things were a bit different-Final focus was 1 minute long, you could not ask to see your opponents evidence and not everything needed a card in order to be true. This might explain some things before you read the rest of this.

Arguments have a claim, a warrant, and a link to the ballot (impact). This is interpreted by my understanding of your explanation of the argument. If I don’t understand the argument/how it functions, I won’t vote on it.

Main items:

1. Clear arguments-I should be able to understand you.

2. What are the impacts?-Impact calc is very important.

3. Give me voters in Final Focus.

4. Abusive Case/Framework/Conduct: Alright so if you are running some sort of FW or case that gives your opponent a super narrow bit of ground to stand on and I feel that they have no ground to make any sort of case then I will consider it in my decisions.

That being said if your framework leaves your opponents with enough ground to work with and they don’t understand it that's their loss.

Conduct in the round should be professional-We are here to debate not get into shouting matches. Or insult the opposing team's intelligence.

Framework/Res Analysis/Observation’s: Totally fine with as long as they are not super abusive. I like weighing mechanisms for rounds.

Evidence Debates/Handover: I have a very large dislike of how some teams seem to think that PF should just be a mini-CX where if you don’t have a card even if the argument is pure logic, they say it cannot be considered. If the logic and the link works I am good with it.

I don't want to see evidence/definition wars unless you can clearly prove that your evidence supplements your opponents. Also, evidence handover counts toward your prep time-not outside of it. You wanna see someone's evidence that comes out of your prep.

Speaker Points: I was asked this several times last year so I figured I would add this piece. How to get 30 speaker points from me. First of all I would say that clarity is a big helper in this, alongside that I will also say that asking good lines of questioning in crossfire can help you get better speaker points from me. I do tend to grade harder on the rebuttal and final focus speeches since those were what I was primarily doing when I competed. The other thing that can be really helpful is analogies. Good analogies can win you a round. If they are actually good.

Things that help you win my ballot:

Unique arguments (That actually link to the resolution)

Be clever.

Be polite.

Be Civil

Make it an awesome round. Down to the wire back and forth. Keep me on the edge of my seat.

Things that hurt you:

Being abusive- either in case or in speaking. Aggressive CF and arguments are okay with me, but keep it in check.

Disregarding All of the above points.

Not being attired professionally. (Unless extenuating circumstances exist)

Ignoring my point about evidence debate.

Insulting an opponent personally.

TOC Specific Items

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

The speed of Delivery: Medium speed and clarity tend to win out more than the number of items that you claim should exist on my flow.

The format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?)

I generally would go for either Line by line will help my flow be clear and easier to understand at the end of the round. Big picture I tend to believe has more of an impact on the summary and the final focus.

Role of the Final Focus

Put this up at the top: But here it is again: I want to see Voters in the final focus. Unless your opponent pulled some sort of crazy stunt that absolutely needs to be addressed, the final focus is a self-promotion speech on why you won the round.

Extension of Arguments into later speeches

If an argument has not been responded to then you can just extend it. If it has been refuted in some way shape or form you need to address that counter before I will flow it across.

Topicality

Unless this is explained extremely well I cannot vote on T. Frankly don't risk it.

Plans

Not for PF.

Kritiks

With the lack of knowledge that I have in regards to how Kritiks should be run, Please do not run them in front of me. This will likely make vote for your opponent.

Flowing/note-taking

You should be flowing in the round-Even if you know that you have the round in the bag. Always flow.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?

Equal. A debator who can combine good arguments with style is going to generally win out over one or the other.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches?

Definetly in the summery. If you have time in the rebuttal you can...

If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech?

No. If you can start to do that great-but that might push you past the medium speed threshold.

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus?

If they are new-no. However, if they are extensions of prior arguments then that will be determined on a round by round basis.

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.

Please read the whole paradigm. Also remember that I am human (I think) and I can make mistakes.

I will judge on content, civility, presentation and format. I ask for an off-timer roadmap at the start to give me a view of what you plan to cover in each of your statements. This allows you to pick up the pace but be aware that going too fast will result in mental overload and you'll lose me.

Please signpost all of your contentions throughout including rebuttal and summary.

Overall be clear, concise and succinct. You'll undoubtedly know a lot about your topic but if I can't follow, it doesn't matter if you have the best argument in the world.

I am a big proponent of making the connection between data, insights and needed action. Don't just reiterate facts and figures to me. Show me the insights you're finding from this information that justify your position on the action you should take.

Lastly, show me the human impact of your contentions.

I value clearly naming your contentions,

citing reputable sources of data,

making rebuttals that specifically refute the other side's arguments,

and speaking clearly and not too rushed.

Please speak clearly and concisely, using fact-based evidence to support your claims.

I debated Public Forum for 3 years and am now a 2nd year college student.

Evidence:

Give me the author and year. Any additional information is fine if it builds their credibility

Speed: As soon as you get over 300 words per minute it will negatively impact your chance of winning because I can't probably flow what you're saying well anymore

Framework: If you really think it's important, go for it. Please justify its importance

No new evidence 2nd Summary and later. No new arguments in Final Focus

If you want to use an argument in FF, warrant it in summary

How I decide the ballot:

My decision of who wins doesn't factor in speaking ability. I'm voting on the arguments. Speaking ability will be a huge determinant in speaker points.

I decide the ballot based upon the offense and defense I have standing in FF. If you dropped it in summary I won't use it as offense. I use the weighing that you did in summary and FF to decide what offense that has held up wins the round.

before you read this ish follow me on IG & TikTok: @echoxangelo

~ Speed is okay unless you're unclear af

~ Signpost! Otherwise I'll barely be able to flow what you're saying

- (ex. "in their contention 2, subpoint A")

~ Off-time road maps encouraged

~ Impact calculus! Don't want to hear a card debate ("their card says this, but our card says this")

- Impacts should at least be touched upon or introduced during Summary

~ Cards taken during prep (prep timer will start as soon as team starts looking at card)

~ I will believe anything unless refuted or addressed by the opponent

+ 2 speaker points for:

- making me laugh

+ 1 speaker points for:

- making a hip-hop or r&b song reference

I am a parent judge. I have judged both PF and LD.

Things I am looking for:

- a clear constructive that supports your position

- consistency in your flow, i.e. don’t bring up new arguments in your rebuttals

- clear delivery. You can often get more impact with a slower speed where you can put more emphasis on a point.

Secondary:

- an argument that seems reasonable considering human/societal behavior. For instance, I don't typically subscribe to theories that a set of events will lead to extinction of the human race.

Speak clearly and enunciate

create cohesive arguments w a clear focal point and supporting facts

be respectful

Hi! I'm Tom, a parent judge, in PF for about 3 years. Be careful about speaking exceedingly fast, I will certainly miss some parts of your arguments! Please keep track of your time, I will as well, and will raise my hand if you are running out and don't seem to be coming to a conclusion. Carry your arguments through the rounds, I'll weigh a hotly contested contention more than one which has been lightly discussed or basically forgotten about. By the end make sure you make it clear why your side has won, as if it isn't clear to you, it certainly won't be clear to me.

Be considerate during cross, ask your questions and allow your opponent to answer. Feel free to answer a question through the end of cross time, but don't start a new question with very few seconds left.

Off-time roadmaps are fine. Card sharing is also off-time, between speeches and cross-fire.

Good luck!

PS. I have only judged Parli once, but it was a pleasure.

Hello friends,

I'm Hannah; I used to do PF for Interlake and am now a 26 at Dartmouth. Please set up an email chain for round documents, my email is hwhuang04@gmail.com.

LD

I have never ever competed in LD. I'll try my best to evaluate everything, but I also haven't debated in a while and am a normal college student at this point... I <3 topical arguments and will probably evaluate them in a way that everyone will be happier about

PF

I evaluate debates as tab as I can, but deep down I do like truthy arguments that make sense. If I dont understand something, I feel cosmically compelled to evaluate other things before it

I liked debating and I like watching people debate. Whether I like judging is another question contingent on some of the things below

Things I like:

• Decelerating rounds: faster case and rebuttal, slower summary and final focus (PLEASE COLLAPSE EFFICIENTLY)
• Clash: collapsing on a common issue on both sides makes the debate more interesting, easier to evaluate, and easier for me to make a decision that everyone is happy with (this can also be done thru comparative weighing)
• Frontlining in the next speech: this should be going on as soon as 2nd rebuttal
• Complete extensions: this goes for offense and defense - no sticky defense
• Warrants/analysis that go beyond "author said so"
• Implicated turns: please weigh turns that aren't direct link turns
• Content warnings with opt outs
• ROB analysis: I like progressive arguments which tell me WHY i should deviate from more traditional judging and what role the judge should take in the round
• Cool, intuitive arguments

Things i dislike:

• New in the 2: I WILL NOT evaluate anything not in summary
• New implicative weighing in ff: it's basically a new argument
• Frivolous theory, please don't waste my time
• Bad spreading
• Bad evidence
• Debaters that don't look at their timers
• Racists/sexists/etc

I'll disclose whenever I can. Feel free to ask questions about my decision if the tournament isn't running behind

TLDR: Flay judge but zero topic knowledge. I'm not kidding. I have very minimal topic knowledge so make sure to put that 'public' into public forum lol

The most frustrating thing as a debater was not knowing how judges made decisions. It makes the activity more unpredictable than it already is.

How I make a decision:

1. Who is winning the weighing?
2. If team A is winning the weighing, I look to their argument(s) first.
3. If team A wins their argument(s), gg, I will not evaluate the rest of the flow
4. If team A is not winning the weighing, I look to team B's argument(s)
5. If team B is winning their argument(s), gg.
6. If team A and B are not winning their argument(s), I presume to the team who is winning the weighing debate (I have my reasons for this), unless other presumption arguments are read

General things:

• Preflow before the round. Delaying the round is the quickest way to lose speaks from me.
• Evidence exchange must happen in <1min or else it is discarded from the round
• Don't steal prep. Call your opponents out if they are.
• Let's skip the handshakes - germs are scary.
• I am not experienced with progressive arguments. You are free to run them, but don't expect me to make an ideal decision.
• I will call for cards at the end of the debate if (1) you tell me to (2) I need to clarify something
• Good analytics > unwarranted cards

Debate related:

• Weighing is cool but meta weighing is cooler
• Second rebuttal should frontline turns at minimum
• Don't be afraid to drop case and go for other pieces of offense on the flow (make sure it's still weighed)
• Fully extend arguments - I will not do any work for you
• Speed is usually fine, but because I'm not familiar with this topic, please go slowww
• Comparative analysis > more blocks

I am a parent who volunteered to judge debate while one of my children was involved. Now that they have graduated I still help most weekends when I am able.

I am also a teacher; I have higher expectations of students who debate, simply because they are trying to improve. I am not a trained debate coach but I have been learning about debate for the last 7 years.

What I usually tell students who ask for my paradigm:

If I can't understand your words I can't judge your arguments. You have practiced your speeches, you know them, so help me understand what you have to say.

I like to hear a clear argument, so tell me what your points are, then offer your evidence. Be honest.

I like the occasional clever pun-but don't overdo it unless you can absolutely nail it!

The most important thing to keep in mind is: You are working hard and I respect that work. You are doing something that matters, thank you for learning about our world and refining your ability to discuss and make decisions about important issues.

About me: I graduated 4 years ago. I debated Public Forum for 4 years. Studied Econ and Political Science.

About the round: Speed is fine as long as I can understand you. Warranting/logic behind your evidence is very important. If you're unable to explain your cards that looks very bad and will be very easy to refute. I won't vote on anything that's not brought up in final focus. If your opponents drop something, tell me. Don't just not mention something from your case until your last speech. Its more important to me that you weigh the most important things in the round as opposed to just summarizing everything that happened. Tell me why you're winning in final focus. voters, impact calculus, and weighing are super helpful. If you want to run framework, I like that, but you need to tell me why I should use it. I'll look at any evidence if you want me to, I might call for something if I feel its necessary but I generally try to avoid evidence debates.

Don't be afraid to concede on smaller arguments in the round to give yourself a strategic advantage on bigger arguments. This is crucial in many rounds.

SIGN POST PLEASE!!!!- this is like the biggest thing. signposting will help me help you on my flow.

Overall, do whatever you want, just do it well.

If you have any further questions please ask.

About me: (He/Him Pronouns) second-year law student at UW. I debated PF for 3 years on local and national circuits. I coached for 4 years after I graduated

If you have questions about the round or my RFD, just email me at: rjl2000@uw.edu Or, text me at 253-683-1929

About round: SHOW UP TO THE ROUND ASAP AND I WILL BE HAPPY AND MORE LIKELY TO GIVE GOOD SPEAKS

speed is fine as long as I can understand you. Please do not full on spread though it's annoying.

I won't vote on anything that's not brought up in final focus. If you want to bring something up in final focus, it should be extended in summary as well.

If your opponents drop something, tell me. Don't just not mention something from your case until your last speech. Its more important to me that you weigh the most important things in the round as opposed to just summarizing everything that happened. Tell me why you're winning in final focus. voters, impact calculus, and weighing are super helpful. If you want to run framework tell me why I should use it. I'll look at any evidence if you want me to, I might call for something if I feel its necessary but I generally try to avoid evidence debates.

Throughout the round, confidence, humor, and aggression are good, while rudeness, bigotry, and general meanness are not. If you think that your attempt at the first category will be interpreted as the second category, error on the side of caution.

SIGN POST PLEASE!!!!- this is like the biggest thing. signposting will help me help you on my flow.

I would prefer no theory/progressive argumentation. If you do decide to run something like that, it better be very important and not just an attempt to get an easy W over people that don't know what's going on.

Specific speech stuff: This is what I would LIKE to see in a high-quality round. Do your best to do these things, but I obviously don't expect all of this from novice debaters.

For 1st rebuttal just solely respond to the opponent's case- please don't go back to your case because I just heard it and there are no responses on it yet. This goes for both rebuttals, but numbering your responses if there are multiple will help me stay organized on the flow

For 2nd rebuttal: Frontline!!!! if you don't mention the main arguments against your case, it'll probably be considered dropped.

Summary: Same thing as second rebuttal in the sense you should be bringing up the main arguments from the previous speech and refuting them. Anything that you don't want your opponent to be able to say "They dropped our __ in summary" should be mentioned

if you want to bring up something in FF, it must be brought up in summary

Collapsing is a good way to ensure you are able to extend all the defense you need and still get offense.

FF: Voters! tell me where to vote! extend some defense if you want, but this speech should mostly be about the places you are winning on the flow and why

weighing is also good

Things that are bad and you should not do:

CALL FOR EVIDENCE/TAKE PREP BEFORE BOTH TEAMS HAVE READ THEIR CASES1! (ex: taking prep as second speaking team before you read your case) super abusive, try-hard, and annoying. If you do this, the max speaker points you can earn is 26. (yes that is arbitrary, too bad.)

Do that really annoying thing that happens in debate where you just keep restating your argument and then saying that refutes your opponents' argument. In rebuttal, your arguments should have warrents. In later speeches, you should explain to me WHY your argument is better than theirs.

Not signpost

overall, i'm experienced so do whatever you want, just do it well.

if you have any further questions please ask.

tl;dr: I am a flay judge who votes on 1) weighing and 2) clean narrative and analysis.

--

Below is my detailed paradigm:

• I prefer clearly articulated arguments with logical links, warrants, and impacts.

• I will not have the same level of understanding of the topic as you do, so don't expect me to catch everything if you're rapid-fire-spitting content. I prefer you speak more conversationally and keep the event a "public" forum. The faster you speak, the more likely I am to miss content.

• Repetition is key to understanding. Make sure you're extending points you want me to vote on until the final focus.

• Weigh impacts and links through direct comparison. Tell me why your impacts are more significant and why your links are clearer and stronger than your opponent's. The clearer, the better and the more likely I am to vote for you.

• Please do not read theory, Kritik, or other progressive arguments. I have a shallow understanding and won't make a good decision should I evaluate them.

• Please read content warnings or have an opt-out form for sensitive topics and ask if the opposing team is okay with you reading the argument. You must have an alternate case if they aren't. I have the right to drop you if I think you're making the round an unsafe space.

About me: I debated Public Forum for 3 years on both the local and national circuit. I am now a freshman and an intended business major at the University of Washington.

-Speed is fine, just make sure I can understand you.

-Don't just tell me what your card says, make sure to explain to me why it matters.

-Please sign post, if I can't follow where you are on the flow, I won't be able to get it down and it may affect the outcome of the round

-Weigh your arguments for me, if I'm left to do it on my own, you may not like what I decide.

-Please narrow down the round to voters in Final Focus, to me this speech is where you really need to sell me and tell me clear reasons as to why you won the round.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/McCormick%2C+Amy

Hey, my name is Lily, and my pronouns are she/they. I debated both public forum and policy for Mount Si High School in Washington state from 2015 to early 2018, and now I judge.

PF

I evaluate rounds strictly on flow, and unless an argument is offensive or discriminatory, I will value it as true until it is adequately responded to. If an argument is offensive or discriminatory, I will immediately drop you. For more information about that, read the Drop Philosophy section at the bottom of the page.

I'm fine with speed, but please speak clearly. I don't care how fast you can speak if you aren't enunciating anything. Questioning and calling for evidence is fine, but don't let evidence debates overwhelm the round. Unless there is a serious issue with misrepresented cards, the content of your arguments is far more important to me.

I vote off final focus, meaning that I'm looking for you to clearly establish to me why you won the round in that speech. Don't make me do the work for you. If one team gives me a voting mechanism and the other doesn't, the team with the mechanism is going to win the round 9 times out of 10. Make final focus easy for me and make it easy for you. And don't try to get away with extending an argument into final focus when it wasn't in summary; I'll never let you.

If you have any questions about your round, you can ask me afterwards if you see me around the tournament. I'll show you my flows and try to answer your questions as best as I can.

Policy

Style

I try to be as flow-oriented as possible, which means that dropped arguments, the line-by-line, straight turns, etc. are very important in my decision if they're extended properly. If only one team gives me a weighing mechanism or a framework, that's gonna be the one I go with (which will lose the other team the round 9 times out of 10). If neither team gives me a weighing mechanism or a framework, I will default to number of arguments or traditional policymaking, respectively.

Specific responses to claims of the other team are very valuable to me. 1NC shells with generic links will grant you offense, but you're going to have to do a lot more work to maintain it throughout the round. Aff needs to respond to the explicit truths presented by the NCs, and the neg needs to respond to the content of the 1AC. Not doing these things will put you at an immediate disadvantage in the round.

Speed is fine, but please be clear. I would much rather listen to a slow debater who can articulate their points clearly than a highly technical one who stumbles through their spreading. This will reflect in speaks if it's an issue in the round. I will clear you if I have to, and I'm completely fine with you clearing your opponents if you cannot understand them either.

Tag-team CX is fine, but don't overdo it or it will reflect in speaks. I can tell the difference between a partner being spoken over and a partner not knowing how to answer, don't worry. Unless the tournament requests otherwise, I default to 8 minutes of prep. Prep ends when the flash drive leaves the computer or the email is sent.

Policy Args

My judging style on case/disads/CPs is pretty par for the course. Don't ignore the perms, give me clear uniqueness/links/impacts, signpost key offense like straight turns, etc. Solvency takeouts/alt cause arguments are fine, but I'm very much partial to the 1% solvency line of thinking, i.e. neg is never going to win on solvency D unless the aff has failed to give a single response. Solvency D allows you better access to your weighing mechanisms, it does not win the round.

Kritiks

I'm a sucker for K debate. My threshold for buying a K is pretty low, as long as the basis of your kritik isn't discriminatory in some way. I'll even vote for death good (very high threshold though) if you debate it well and your argumentation is unproblematic. I think it's pretty rare that an aff wins the no link argument, but if the link really is tenuous or nonexistent the K is usually dead in the water by the end of the 2AC. I tend to use an emancipatory lens on the alt level, which means that I don't necessarily think that the alt has to solve as long as the squo is bad and the alt is better. That being said, I won't make that step in argumentation for you. "Alt doesn't solve" is a reason to reject the kritik if you don't respond to it. Keep in mind that my low kritikal threshold doesn't mean you can get away with a sloppy argument. Maintaining a discursive standard is key to any sort of material impacts of running kritiks. Beyond that, I'll just be sad.

Topicality

I have a high threshold for topicality. One of my biggest pet peeves about policy is people who run short T-shells at the top of the 1NC when everyone in the room knows the aff meets the interp just so you can win the time skew. I'm more likely to default to reasonability than competing interpretations, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on either. Slow down on your standards if you want me to flow them all. Generally speaking, I would greatly prefer if you only run T when you think the topicality question is specifically important in the round.

Theory

My threshold for non-T theory is definitely lower, probably because it's more often run as a legitimate grievance with the other team than not. As long as you run a proper theory shell, I'm willing to buy the argument. Incomplete shells are dropped automatically unless it's completed in the immediately following CX. I think that very few theory violations warrant dropping the team, other than major structural ones (new disad in the 1NR or something else ridiculous). The team committing the violation had to spend time to make whatever invalid argument they made, and the team reading the shell spends time responding to it. At that point, it's probably going to be a wash and I'll just drop the arg. I'll drop the team if you truly argue it well and/or the other team doesn't respond to it, but it's not a very reliable win condition.

K Affs

I'll fill out this section when I start judging OCX.

Drop Philosophy

Despite judging on flow, there are a few things teams can do that will earn an instant drop from me. I am very big on access to the debate space, and that always comes before the value of the institution once we have accessed it. That means that any conduct which restricts access will be met with a drop. Laughing at or making fun of your opponents is a drop. Making racist/misogynistic/anti-LGBT/ableist/classist/other discriminatory arguments is a drop. It will be similarly reflected in your speaks. I'll still give you the line-by-line feedback, and your conduct in one round won't affect my evaluation of you in another round (as much as that is humanly possible, anyway). Unless the conduct displayed in round is especially egregious and I have concerns about your willingness to correct your behavior, no conversations will have to be had with your coach. I'm a firm believer that y'all are mature enough to handle self-crit and other forms of accountability without your coach scolding you for it.

*If you read my paradigm, ask for a fist bump when you walk in and I'll give you a small bump in speaks*

Hello, my name is Joey Ribera (he/him) and I'm a former PF/LD debater (3 years pf/1 year LD).

My Paradigm:

- Speed is fine

- Whatever contentions/argumentation you view relevant to bring up in the round, I will flow + consider in my decision. The only thing I encourage is making the impacts and the weighing factors you'd want me to evaluate them from really clear within the round.

- Feel free to ask me any clarifying questions before round!

**Judging Paradigm for Lincoln-Douglas Debate**

Welcome to the round! As a judge in Lincoln-Douglas Debate, I approach the evaluation of arguments with a focus on values and philosophical principles. Here are some key aspects to keep in mind:

1. **Value-Centered Debate:**
- I expect debaters to engage in a clash of values and ethical principles rather than relying heavily on plans or counter-plans.
- Clearly articulate and defend the value that underlies your case, and explain how it should be prioritized in the round.

2. **Framework:**
- Present a clear framework that guides the round. Explain how the values and criteria should be weighed and why they are most relevant in determining the winner.
- The framework should serve as a lens through which all contentions and impacts are analyzed.

3. **Contentions:**
- Develop well-reasoned contentions that directly relate to the established framework.
- Provide solid reasoning and evidence to support your contentions, and show how they contribute to the overall value clash.

4. **Clash:**
- Engage with your opponent's arguments, demonstrating a thorough understanding of their position.
- Highlight the points of clash between your case and your opponent's, and explain why your position is superior within the established framework.

5. **Resolution Analysis:**
- Clearly connect your arguments to the resolution. Demonstrate how your position upholds or challenges the resolution, and why that matters in the context of the round.

6. **Quality of Analysis:**
- I value depth over breadth. Provide in-depth analysis and warranting for key arguments rather than presenting a wide array of superficial points.
- Logical reasoning and the ability to link evidence to the overall framework are essential.

7. **Speaker Etiquette:**
- Be respectful and professional throughout the round. Avoid personal attacks and focus on the merits of the arguments presented.

8. **Flexibility:**
- While I appreciate a well-prepared case, the ability to adapt to your opponent's arguments and effectively respond in crossfire is crucial.

Remember, the round is not just about presenting arguments but also about persuading me that your ethical framework is the most compelling. Good luck, and I look forward to a thoughtful and engaging debate!

The topics that we consider are far more complex than you are going to be able to legitimately convince me, one way or the other, in a single round of debate. Thus, I will not ask you to change my mind. Instead, I will judge the round based on who argues their side more effectively. If you happen to convince me in the process, then all the better. But I will attempt to set my preconceived notions aside at the start of the round, and the decision will go to the team/person who's arguments outweigh.

In addition, I will flow, but it is your responsibility to present your arguments in a way that I can understand and follow. Failure to do so is a fault in the debate and will inevitably result in me not weighing an argument that I did not follow.

rifatrehman@hotmail.com for the email chain.

I am a parent judge for Mount Si High School, and have been judging locally for 3 years.

A few things to keep in mind:

-Arguing for debate is healthy. Arguing for arguments' sake is not.

-Please be respectful and considerate. Don't be abrasive or cocky.

- Your argumentation should be logical.

-Extend all your arguments. I like a healthy clash.

-List out voters, and weigh.

-Please speak clearly.

-If you take too long to find a card, I’ll start running your prep.

This paradigm is time tested, and daughter approved!

TL;DR

• Be kind in all that you do.

• I flow but not particularly well (especially the back half) and generally will not evaluate arguments that I don't understand, so please collapse and make sure you clearly extend your warranting.

• I am generally okay with spreading as long as I get a speech doc.

• I have a slight preference for truth over tech. My brightline here isn’t totally clear so you’re probably best playing it safe.

• Under no circumstances will I vote for a "death good" argument and under very few circumstances will I vote for an "oppression good" argument. Pretty much every other type of argument is fine.

• Theory should only be run for legitimate norms and legitimate violations. Running stuff like “tall people theory” or “formal clothes theory” almost guarantees a loss.

• For email chain purposes: thadhsmith13@gmail.com

Background

I’ve been a member of the debating world for about eight years now. As a competitor, I saw some success at the state and national level in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas, and World Schools, qualifying for the state championship four times and placing 10th at Nats in 2019. I also competed in BP debate at the university level in England. I am currently an assistant coach for American Heritage School - Broward.

I have a Bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Gender, Sexuality, & Race Studies. I have a Master’s degree in Theory and Practice of Human Rights. You can expect me to have more than the average level of knowledge in those areas. I like to think that I know about as much as the average person on most other things, but for economic arguments (or anything involving math) I get lost easily. Do with that what you will!

Evidence ethics

I have voted on evidence ethics violations in the past, both with and without competitors calling them out in round. Straw arguments, aggressive ellipses, and brackets could all be round-enders.

Don't paraphrase! I will be very open to cut cards theory, direct quotes theory, or anything else like that. If you do paraphrase, you need to be able to provide a cut card or the exact quote you're referencing if evidence is called. It's not a reasonable expectation for your opponents or I to have to scrub through a webpage or a long document searching for your evidence.

Public Forum

I find myself leaning more and more truth > tech, especially with the state of evidence ethics these days. It's really important for you to explain the link chain and somewhat important for you to explain things like author credibility/study methodology, especially for big impact contentions.

Line-by-line rebuttal is really important in the front half of the round. That means you should be frontlining in second rebuttal, respond to arguments in an order that makes logical sense, and actively extend your own arguments. For an extension to be effective you need to tell me what the argument is, how it works, and why it's important. You can almost always do this in three sentences or less. These pieces are important - I don't flow evidence names, so saying something like "Hendrickson solves" without an explanation does nothing for you.

Fiat is pretty much always a thing - There's a reason Public Forum topics usually ask "is this policy a good idea" and not "will this thing happen." My view of fiat is that it lets the debate take place on a principles level and creates a "comparative" between a world with a policy and a world without a policy. That said, politics arguments can work, but only if they relate to a political consequence of a policy being enacted and not if they try and say a policy will never happen in the first place.

Kritiks and theory are fine in PF. Be mindful of your time constraints. For kritiks, focus on explaining how your cards work and what the alternative is. For theory, make sure there's a legitimate violation and that it's something you're willing to bet the round on. Theory exists to create norms. I won’t vote on frivolous theory and I won’t vote on your shell if you aren’t actively embodying the norm you’re proposing.

Flex prep does not exist. “Open” crossfires don’t exist. As a whole, crossfire doesn’t matter that much but you still shouldn’t contradict yourself between cross and speech.

Lincoln-Douglas

I really enjoy a good framework debate and it’s something that I find is missing from a lot of modern LD rounds. One of the best parts of LD is getting to see how different philosophies engage with each other, and we’re gonna see that thru framing. I do my best to evaluate the framework debate at the very top and use it as my primary decision-making mechanism. Framing doesn't have to be done with a value/criterion if you'd rather run a K or Theory or something else, but you need to five me a role of the ballot if you don't use a value/criterion.

Please don’t spread philosophy or theory if you want me to flow it - I read and write it all the time and I still barely understand it, so I’m not going to understand what you’re saying if you’re going 500 words per minute. If you must spread your framework or K, send me the case or be prepared to explain it again next speech.

I’m fine with condo, fiat, and counterplans. Please don’t paraphrase and don't rehighlight.

"Debate bad" arguments are pretty weird. I probably won't vote on them because, at the most fundamental level, you're still participating in a debate round and perpetuating whatever core "harm" of debate that you're talking about. If your alternative is a reasonable alternative or reform instead of just "don't do debate", I could be persuaded, but you've got an uphill battle.

Congress

If you have me as your parli, there are two things you need to know about me: I love Robert's Rules of Order and I hate one-sided debate. Ignore these things at your own risk. Other important things, in no particular order:

• Display courtesy to your fellow competitors and do your best to ensure that everyone in the chamber is heard. I pay attention to pre-round, in-round, and post-round politics.
• Engagement with the other speakers is important, both through questions and through in-speech references. Every speech past the author/sponsor needs to have rebuttal or extension of some kind.
• Authorships/sponsorships (there's no such thing as a "first affirmative") need to explain exactly what the bill does. Don't assume I'll read the packet.
• Good Congress rounds have a narrative arc - The first few speeches should present core arguments and frame the round, the next few speeches should be heavy on refutation and extension, and the final few speeches should crystallize the debate.
• Many things that people do in-round have no basis in either the rules or parliamentary procedure. Many motions don't exist - There are no motions to "address the chamber," "open the floor for debate," "amend the agenda," or "impeach the presiding officer." You can't rescind a seconded motion (or a second), you can't object to a motion to move the previous question, most tournaments don't have a requirement to track question recency, elections should really be handled by the parli, etc.
• At this point, I've heard every canned intro under the sun. If I hear you use the same exact intro on multiple different bills/rounds, or the same intro as a dozen other people, or the same unfunny meta-references with random names subbed in, you are getting docked speech points. It takes barely any effort to come up with an intro that's relevant to your content.

World Schools

The most important thing for you to do is to remember the purpose of your speech. Your speech should not be defined by the "line-by-line," rather, you should have a clear idea or set of ideas that you are trying to get across and I should be able to understand what those ideas were at the end of your speech. I am a big believer in the "World Schools style," meaning that I like it when debaters lean into the concept of being representatives in a global governing body, when debaters deploy flowery rhetoric about grand ideals, and when debaters spend a lot of time establishing and engaging with the framework/definitions/plan for the debate.

Theory

I'm fine with theory as long as it's a legitimate norm and a legitimate violation. Don't run frivolous theory (I'm not going to vote on something like "debaters should sit during their speeches", for example) and don't run theory if it isn't a norm you're actively doing yourself (don't run disclosure theory if you didn't disclose either). I don't have a preference on DtD vs. DtA or Competing Interpretations vs. Responsibility. I lean rather heavily towards theory being a RVI, especially in PF debates where it often becomes the only argument in the round.

I'm ambivalent about trigger warnings. I'm not going to be the arbiter of somebody else's experience and there's not much evidence that they're actually harmful in any meaningful way. Be aware that simply saying "trigger warning" tells us nothing - If you have one, be specific (but not graphic) about the potentially triggering content.

Kritiks

Kritiks are an incredibly powerful education tool that let debaters bring light to important issues. That said, you do need a link, preferably a resolutional/case one. I'm not opposed to hearing kritiks that tackle the structure of debate as a whole, but I think that it's difficult for you to justify that while also participating in the structure (especially because I've seen the same debaters participate in debate rounds without talking about these structural issues). Just like theory, you should be talking about legitimate issues, not just trying to win a round.

Death Good/Oppression Good

"Death good" is a nonstarter in front of me. I get it - I was a high school debater too, and I have vivid memories of running the most asinine arguments possible because I thought it would be a path to a technical victory. As I've stepped away from competition, entered the role of an educator, and (especially) as I've become immersed in human rights issues indirectly through my research and personally through my work, I no longer hold the same view of these arguments. I've been in rounds where judges and the audience are visibly, painfully uncomfortable with one side's advocacy. I've voted on the flow and felt sick doing it. I don't anymore. Do not run "death good" in front of me unless you want a loss and 20 speaks. It's not good education, it actively creates an unsafe space, and its often incredibly callous to actual, real-world human suffering.

"Oppression good" is also generally bad but I can at least see a potential case here, kinda? Probably best to avoid anyway.

Hi,

I am Sara Sprague, I go by she/her pronouns, and I am a sophomore at the University of Washington double majoring in Political Science and Law, Society, and Justice, with a minor in Environmental studies. I debated all through High School and did speech as well, attending nationals and nietoc as well as a couple national circuit tournaments. My main event was public forum, but I have competed in Duo, Oratory, DI, and POI as well.

FOR PF:

Evidence: Include author and year. I will believe anything your opponent says unless you call for it. If evidence seems fake, ask to see it.

Speed: I am fine with it as long as I can understand you.

Framework: If you really think it's important, fine. You must justify its importance

No new evidence 2nd Summary and later. No new arguments in Final Focus.

If you are rude or degrade your opponents or partner in anyway, it won't just affect your speaking points, it will influence your ability to win the round.

I like debate and have been coaching and judging debate for 40 years. I competed in high school policy debate and college NDT and CEDA debate. For most of my career, I coached all events at Okoboji High School in Iowa. I worked for Summit Debate at NDF Boston in Public Forum for 15 years and judged numerous PF LD practice and tournament rounds. I have been the LD coach for Puyallup High School for the past five years. I'm working with the LD, Congress and PF at Puyallup.

The past six years, I've judge LD rounds from novice through circuit tournaments. I judge policy rarely, but I do enjoy it. Paradigms for each follow.

PF This is a debate that should be interesting for all Americans. It should not be overly fast or technical. I will take a detailed flow, and I don't mind terms like link and impact. Evidence should be read, and I expect refutation of important issues, especially the offense presented in the round. Follow the debate rules, and I should be good. The final focus should spend at least some time going over weighing. Be nice to each other, and Grand Cross should not be a yelling match. The summary speaker must extend any arguments to be used in Final Focus. I expect the second speaking team to engage in the arguments presented in the rebuttal. I do not like disclosure theory, and it would be difficult for me to vote for it.

LD - I have judged a lot of circuit rounds over the years but not as many over the past four years. Washington state has a slower speed preference than the national circuit, so I'm not as practiced at that type of speed. My age means I don't flow or hear as well as I use to, so make sure I'm flowing. I like speed, but at rare times I have difficult time keeping up. If this happens, I will let you know. I expect a standard/criterion debate in the round. If you do something else, you must explain to me why it is legitimate. If you run kritiks, DA's, or plans, you must develop them enough for me to understand them. I do not like micropol positions. I will not drop them on face. I don't mind theory, but again, it must be developed. Bad advocacy is bad debating. Lying in the round or during cx will be dealt with severely. CX is binding. I expect clean extensions of arguments, and will give weight to arguments dropped by debaters. I want to be a blank slate in the back of the room. Please tell me why I should vote for you. Deontology frameworks are fine, but they must be justified. Any tricks must be clear, and obtuseness in CX will not be allowed. Finally, I will not vote for disclosure theory unless something weird happens.

Policy died in our circuit, and we were the only team still trying to do it. I haven't coached a policy team for a season since 2010; however, I've had teams go to tournaments in policy for fun and to try it. I've also judged policy debate at district tournaments to fulfill the clean judge rule. I have judged a couple of policy rounds this year, and they were not difficult to judge. Just expect me to like traditional positions.

Watch me for speed. I will try to keep up, but I'm old. It's a lack of hearing that may cause me to fall behind. I will yell "clear," and that probably means slow down. I'll do my best. I like all kinds of policy arguments, and I'm ok with kritiks. You may want to explain them to me a bit better because it may have been awhile since I heard the argument. Besides that, I'm a policy maker unless you tell me to be something else. Theory is ok, but it should be developed. Abuse must be proven in the round. Rebuttals should kick unimportant arguments and settle on a few to delineate. The final speeches should weigh the arguments.

I’m fine with speed, and just make it an interesting debate, don’t drop contentions, and have fun during cross !!

know your case.

I am a lay judge. I would really like to see the second speaker to give me voters and explain to me why they should win the round. I would also links being supported by evidence. I would like debaters to be respectful towards eachother or I will be docking speaker points. Carry your relevant cards and arguements throughout the whole debate. I would also like to see impacts clearly being stated so that I can flow effiecently. Because I am a lay judge I would prefer arguments to be read slowly so that I can efficenetly flow arguments.

Thanks

Lokesh Vasisht

Hey!! She/they pronouns and I have two years of experience in debate, and three years of speech experience!

Debate- One year of experience in LD and PF forms of debate. For me, there are a few key things that stand out in terms of who is the clear winning of the round. I liked to see clash in rounds, either in cx or in rebuttals however, it still needs to remain respectful. Debate is an all inclusive sport and if you or your teammate disrespects someone else in the room in a way that is blatantly disrespected- you will with out a doubt loose the round. You should be impacting and weighing out your arguments to clearly show me in importance in your arguments. You should be making thee connections as it is not my role as the judge to do so. Be clear on why you won on specific arguments. Make sure to respond to every argument made and try not to drop anything. I like to see voters in your final speech as it is your final chance to convince me why your side won. When giving rebuttals make sure to road map where you are. If I can't find where you are, I'm not going to flow it. As far as presentation goes the only thing is to be standing while giving your speech and cross examination (grand cross for pf is an exception).

IE- hey speech kids :) I have three years of experience in speech, I did one year of interp and three years of platform speaking mainly focusing on expose or informative! I was second in state in 2019 for informative and went to nationals both the 2019 and the 2020 season (rip). Overall, I don't worry too much about timing. I know in higher level comps they really focus on it but at least in my case, I really focused on my times during practicing so I didn't worry about it when I was performing. I am assuming you guys know your times pretty well and I definitely still keep time and record it, I just wont down vote you for it. For interp pieces, I tend to focus on more technical aspects rather than the overall performance. While you can have a great script, it doesn't hit as hard if your execution of it is weak. I really look for creative blocking and a clear distinction between characters. This means making clean pops and having separate voices/posture/movements for each character so it is incredibly clear that you are a different character than before! For duo this means that the two people cannot touch or look at each other and please follow this! I'm a stickler for the specifics. DI- please have a clear climax and don't spend your entire ten minuets yelling:( For platform speakers! I love really creative topics because a lot of topics tend to be recycled which ends up having the same points done over and over. If you're going to pick a topic that seems like it's been done before, please try to put a fun spin on it or bring up a difference aspect of the topic that usually isn't talked about. Make sure that you have a good amount of jokes that actually are funny...trust me i know how hard it is to make your piece funny sometimes but it really is a very important part that I judge on and something that I really value in speeches.

she/xe pronouns ask if you don't understand that

i’m a senior in pf

i vote more tech>truth than truth>tech

pls extend ur warrants

i require content warnings if you plan on reading sensitive arguments. better to assume it is sensitive than not. if you want my full opinion/a cw theory shell check my wiki

email me if you hv questions novelisticme@gmail.com

PF PARADIGM:

2nd rebuttal should frontline. i'm not very comfortable voting off new frontlines in 2nd summary

analytics can equate to evidence if they are well warranted (half of pf is just reading basically blog posts as warrants, an analytic is not akin to a study but it definitely can match chen 18.) that said evidence without warrants is pretty useless in context to debate rounds.

if a piece of evidence is contested throughout the round i'll call for it myself. i will drop speaker points as well as arguments when teams knowingly use misconstrued cards to further their game. if your opponent reads theory about evidence ethics or suggests i drop you over ethics i'll probably go for it (if i can verify the violation they present me in your evidence).

i will understand vernacular/jargon. i'm fine with speed under 450 if the round is between noon and four pm, otherwise pls stay under 350. send speech docs if you plan on spreading and want me to be guaranteed to follow

i might listen to 1st and 2nd cross, probably not grand tho. i approve of using grand cross for non-strategic purposes such as discussing educational topics or if we live in a simulation

you can use a framework if you want to. i'm receptive to framing arguments like structural violence. pls cut topic specific evidence!!

theory arguments are chill with me, just know what you're doing when you read them. i don't have a lot of experience with kritical debate, i'm receptive to it but i may not understand it well enough to make a super satisfying decision. i wish pf had plans/cps tbh